You have to take the good with the bad. We are a nation of laws, contrived by mortals. It's not a pick and choose system. You can't have the second amendment but throw out the rest of our system of government. But as we've already seen in this thread a couple of times, there are elements within the firearms rights group who think that the right to bear arms transcends law (being a god given right, and one that Steezy will defend to his death).

Sometimes we get it wrong and our system certainly has the ability to be manipulated by a well financed minority. Just look at how powerful the NRA is... as far as I know it has fewer than 10M members.

For the record, I don't really have a problem with "assault weapons." Handguns on the other hand....

You have to take the good with the bad. We are a nation of laws, contrived by mortals. It's not a pick and choose system. You can't have the second amendment but throw out the rest of our system of government. But as we've already seen in this thread a couple of times, there are elements within the firearms rights group who think that the right to bear arms transcends law (being a god given right, and one that Steezy will defend to his death).

Sometimes we get it wrong and our system certainly has the ability to be manipulated by a well financed minority. Just look at how powerful the NRA is... as far as I know it has fewer than 10M members.

For the record, I don't really have a problem with "assault weapons." Handguns on the other hand....

Missing my point, the fail is you (people in general) leaving things up to the incumbents to figure it out for us. I don't want that, rather make educated decisions. The folks in office gave us the Fast n Furious program and they are also not enforcing existing laws and policy. It's not rational to continue that way.

Missing my point, the fail is you (people in general) leaving things up to the incumbents to figure it out for us. I don't want that, rather make educated decisions. The folks in office gave us the Fast n Furious program and they are also not enforcing existing laws and policy. It's not rational to continue that way.

No, I get what you are saying. You don't like existing policy or existing policy makers. Understood.

We have a process where you can fix that. Exercise your right to vote. Call your elected representatives. Talk to your friends and tell them to do the same thing. If things are as bad as you say, that's the only rational way to continue.

I think the point is that this lil experiment in freedom called America was designed to be in favor of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Basically, all citizens are required to be of such character that they are trusted to be free to own the materials necessary to defend their own right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Laws are meant to deal with those who breach that trust. Individuals are accountable for their actions and the society is respsonsible for enforcement of laws and the punishment for the individuals who breach that trust.

What has happened is that as a society, we have failed to enforce our laws and punish those who breach that trust to the point that they cannot or will not breach it again. Therefore, more people are willing to breach that trust for personal gain. The knee jerk reaction to the rising number of those willing to breach that trust is to stop trusting the whole. That is the wrong solution. It doesnt stop bad people from performing these actions, it merely makes them less surprising since you dont trust anyone to begin with.

Criminals are not hindered by laws by definition, so laws only hinder the law abiding. If you want to stop criminals, make the punishment for crime so severe that people are not tempted by the potential personal gain.

I think the point is that this lil experiment in freedom called America was designed to be in favor of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Basically, all citizens are required to be of such character that they are trusted to be free to own the materials necessary to defend their own right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Laws are meant to deal with those who breach that trust. Individuals are accountable for their actions and the society is respsonsible for enforcement of laws and the punishment for the individuals who breach that trust.

What has happened is that as a society, we have failed to enforce our laws and punish those who breach that trust to the point that they cannot or will not breach it again. Therefore, more people are willing to breach that trust for personal gain. The knee jerk reaction to the rising number of those willing to breach that trust is to stop trusting the whole. That is the wrong solution. It doesnt stop bad people from performing these actions, it merely makes them less surprising since you dont trust anyone to begin with.

Criminals are not hindered by laws by definition, so laws only hinder the law abiding. If you want to stop criminals, make the punishment for crime so severe that people are not tempted by the potential personal gain.

I don't believe that always works to plan. Our prison systems are already so overcrowded that many criminals serving say 5 years, do a fraction of that time. And let's say Guy A commits murder with a handgun and Guy B commits a murder using a knife. Even though they committed essentially the same crime, Guy A receives a harsher penalty.

Besides, you can go to a country like Turkey where thieves risk having their hand cut off by the govt. Thievery still runs rampant in Turkey.

No question, it will never be perfect, but we should strive for it anyway. That's what made America the land of the free.

Quote:

Besides, you can go to a country like Turkey where thieves risk having their hand cut off by the govt. Thievery still runs rampant in Turkey.

Then that penalty system isn't effective. You can go to a place like Singapore where you can get the death penalty for theft or drug offenses and they don't have a crime problem at all, nor do they actually have to execute all that often. Its creating a culture of accountability through a penalty system that works, and it results in requiring the penalty less.

The same is true for guns. For years, Americans had the rights to own any gun they wanted. They didn't own all that many because the didn't feel the needed them. Crime was punished severely and there wasn't a crime problem. People didn't lock their doors at night. As America became soft on crime and compassionate for criminals, the risk reward began to change. The public became fearful of one another as crime rose. They started locking their doors at night. They began arming themselves. Criminals became more advanced and organized, buying machineguns as tools of the trade, outgunning law enforcement. So, we punished society with the NFA in hopes to keep mobsters from getting tommyguns. It didnt work, they still got em, and the answer was giving law enforcement surplus BARs. NFA still doesnt thwart criminal possession today. Any criminal can have a full auto within a day or two if he wanted one. They still get em easily, but if anyone else wants one, including law enforcement, they have to get ATF approval which is currently running 6-8 months per stamp (for civis, a little less for LE. Different form). So, it only hinders the good guys\ law abiding. So what is the NFA good for?

Bottom line, is that we have allowed our culture to become soft an apathetic on crime. We are desperate to stop it but loathe the effort of requiring accountability of our citizens. So the easy way out is to reduce the level of rights to all in an effort to inconvenience the criminals.

No question, it will never be perfect, but we should strive for it anyway. That's what made America the land of the free.

Then that penalty system isn't effective. You can go to a place like Singapore where you can get the death penalty for theft or drug offenses and they don't have a crime problem at all, nor do they actually have to execute all that often. Its creating a culture of accountability through a penalty system that works, and it results in requiring the penalty less.

The same is true for guns. For years, Americans had the rights to own any gun they wanted. They didn't own all that many because the didn't feel the needed them. Crime was punished severely and there wasn't a crime problem. People didn't lock their doors at night. As America became soft on crime and compassionate for criminals, the risk reward began to change. The public became fearful of one another as crime rose. They started locking their doors at night. They began arming themselves. Criminals became more advanced and organized, buying machineguns as tools of the trade, outgunning law enforcement. So, we punished society with the NFA in hopes to keep mobsters from getting tommyguns. It didnt work, they still got em, and the answer was giving law enforcement surplus BARs. NFA still doesnt thwart criminal possession today. Any criminal can have a full auto within a day or two if he wanted one. They still get em easily, but if anyone else wants one, including law enforcement, they have to get ATF approval which is currently running 6-8 months per stamp (for civis, a little less for LE. Different form). So, it only hinders the good guys\ law abiding. So what is the NFA good for?

Bottom line, is that we have allowed our culture to become soft an apathetic on crime. We are desperate to stop it but loathe the effort of requiring accountability of our citizens. So the easy way out is to reduce the level of rights to all in an effort to inconvenience the criminals.

I get what you are saying, but I think it's a real stretch to say that crime is the result of limited access to guns. In the neighborhoods where you are most likely to be shot, there's also poverty, lack of education, the aforementioned incarceration rates, and few jobs. To say that crime is the result of gun control is pretty simplistic.

I get what you are saying, but I think it's a real stretch to say that crime is the result of limited access to guns. In the neighborhoods where you are most likely to be shot, there's also poverty, lack of education, the aforementioned incarceration rates, and few jobs. To say that crime is the result of gun control is pretty simplistic.

Our incarceration rate is largely due to drugs. Singapore has the death penalty for possession. So by default, they arent exactly incarcerating them. Singapore law does not prohibit any gun type for ownership. Prisons are expensive, so in Singapore most punishments are public beatings or death. For those who are incarcerated, prison is hell on earth.

Look at our prisons by comparison. We have our white collar club med prisons all the way to our supermax with clean living, education programs, workout facilities, movie theaters, and cable TV. Our prisoners live better that 99% of the honest people in the world. hardly a punishment fit for breaking the trust of American society.

Who is "they"? The original police report had the Bushmaster along with the two handguns were found inside the school. What I posted was a restatement by the Connecticut State Police; they have been consistent in their findings. Share this mysterious information that you seem to believe is true. And what is this "assault weapon" ban that has been "initiated"? My friend just bought an AR-15 at a sporting goods store here in TN.

"An AR-15, or the so-called "Assault Weapon", was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged. I remember in the initial hours of this shooting, the Police said they found the rifle in the car. But the Administration-controlled MSM had a pre-planned attack already waiting, to ban so-called assault weapons and jumped on that line of reporting, knowing it was a lie, which included people like Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun. Could it be that the Democrat Liberals and THEIR MEDIA were pushing for the new law, hoping they could do it, before the Coroner released the info? Absolutely."

so a report with no sources but a talking head on TV the day after the shooting (from "liberal media" NBC no less) is infallible but the Connecticut state police's website clarifying is all part of the hoax?

In other words, "some guy told me" is better in your mind than "the police say, in writing"?

Stupid founders and their stupid eighth amendment! We coulda been Singapore!

Exactly my point!! The founders write in rules for cruel and unusual punishment to keep you from being drawn and quartered, or disemboweled, and you (modern society) interpret it to a right to a free college education and premium cable. We are so far removed from actual hard living that our idea of cruel and unusual is basic cable, 800 thread count sheets, reheated steak, and universal weight sets. I mean, these are human beings right? LOL!

I think the point is that this lil experiment in freedom called America was designed to be in favor of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Basically, all citizens are required to be of such character that they are trusted to be free to own the materials necessary to defend their own right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Laws are meant to deal with those who breach that trust. Individuals are accountable for their actions and the society is respsonsible for enforcement of laws and the punishment for the individuals who breach that trust.

What has happened is that as a society, we have failed to enforce our laws and punish those who breach that trust to the point that they cannot or will not breach it again. Therefore, more people are willing to breach that trust for personal gain. The knee jerk reaction to the rising number of those willing to breach that trust is to stop trusting the whole. That is the wrong solution. It doesnt stop bad people from performing these actions, it merely makes them less surprising since you dont trust anyone to begin with.

Criminals are not hindered by laws by definition, so laws only hinder the law abiding. If you want to stop criminals, make the punishment for crime so severe that people are not tempted by the potential personal gain.

I agree. We are way too lenient on crimes. I strongly believe in the death penalty. You commit a crime that has the potential of life in prison, just effin kill the person. Why do the tax payers need to pay to keep them alive?

I'm pretty sure most folks would see execution for drug possession as cruel and unusual, which is the example you gave, Jason.

I wasnt implying that we institute the death penalty for possession. its was simply an example of how harsh penalties do curb the infraction rate substancially. I was contrasting that to our system where being on the inside of a prison has perks that a law abiding citizen doesnt get. Ive often wondered if it would be worth it to figure out how to serve 4 years for a misdemeanor crime, and get your degree for free without having to worry about keeping a roof over your head or feeding yourself, rather than go $100k+ in debt and struggle in school while working full time failing to pay rent and eat. The point is that in the grand scheme of humanity, our prisons are a very comfortable place, and this fact makes the reward of crime worth the risk of going to our fine prisons. They arent over crowded because our our laws, they are over crowded because they arent a bad place to be.

Quote:

What if the person is wrongly convicted? Are you okay with effin killing an innocent person?

Are you ok with having innocent people serve out a life sentence? Wrong convictions are a problem with the trial side, not the punishment side.

so a report with no sources but a talking head on TV the day after the shooting (from "liberal media" NBC no less) is infallible but the Connecticut state police's website clarifying is all part of the hoax?

In other words, "some guy told me" is better in your mind than "the police say, in writing"?

No. but it's creates more doubt. But the coroner changed his story about which weapons were used. First it was handguns. Suddenly there is a huge push to ban assault weapons, and the stories changes to an AR-15. Coincidence? Maybe.

Believe who and what you want. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm telling you why I have my doubts. To me it's not hard to fathom that the CT police could be influenced to change their story in the best interest of a political agenda, like banning assault rifles.

No. but it's creates more doubt. But the coroner changed his story about which weapons were used. First it was handguns. Suddenly there is a huge push to ban assault weapons, and the stories changes to an AR-15. Coincidence? Maybe.

Believe who and what you want. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm telling you why I have my doubts. To me it's not hard to fathom that the CT police could be influenced to change their story in the best interest of a political agenda, like banning assault rifles.

So if we take another recent media firestorm, Benghazi, do you think the initial reports are the most credible? Do think those initial reports are probably still accurate?

Conspiracies generally are very hard to keep. If you are now suggesting that the CT state police are falsifying evidence, how many people are in on that? 15 or 20 at least, right (**Assuming the WHOLE THING isn't faked with pretend dead kids, actor parents, etc, in which case the number of conspirators has to be in the hundreds at least)? And all of those folks are putting their careers and reputations on the line on the hope that a long shot awb will pass? Why have none of the conspirators cracked?

I know I know, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

There is a big problem with the logic being used in the gun debate. I'm a liberal gun owner who supports the 2nd ammendment right but it seems that most of the weapons stock pilers are immature losers who fantasize about taking the country back from the immigrants by using their guns to kill all the brown people and somehow that is going to fix the broken government. People talk about protecting themselves from the government but they aren't prepared to fight the government as they lack the heavy artillery and remotely guided weapons that our government has (not to mention the 600 billion per year defense budget). So how will you fight the government with your simple assault rifles? I guess the only option is to kill anyone who doesn't vote the same way you do. That isn't the kind of protection from the government that the 2nd ammendment intended but is rather a spit in the face for the entire US Constitution and its creators. I support the 2nd ammendment but if you intend to kill me because I also voted for the "Muslim liar in chief who was born in Kenya and doesn't care about Americans killed in Bengazi" then I have a huge problem with you. The second ammendment isn't in any danger as it takes a 2/3 majority vote to change or remove it and that's not going to happen. The supreme court is 5 to 4 in favor of conservative view points so the 2nd ammendment won't be interpreted to inhibit the 2nd ammendment. Background checks only affect you if you're a wacko nut job. An executive order cannot be used to overturn a constitutional right. A UN resolution does not take priority over constitutional or Ameican law so that argument is irrelevant as well. Nobody is going to take away your guns. The US military is the biggest threat to you and you're the one voting to keep giving them more money as if over 600 billion a year wasn't already way too much considering the pitence that we pay our soldiers for their bravery and service. People like you are your own worst enemy as most of your arguments support the fear of others who want to take away your guns.

I wasnt implying that we institute the death penalty for possession. its was simply an example of how harsh penalties do curb the infraction rate substancially. I was contrasting that to our system where being on the inside of a prison has perks that a law abiding citizen doesnt get. Ive often wondered if it would be worth it to figure out how to serve 4 years for a misdemeanor crime, and get your degree for free without having to worry about keeping a roof over your head or feeding yourself, rather than go $100k+ in debt and struggle in school while working full time failing to pay rent and eat. The point is that in the grand scheme of humanity, our prisons are a very comfortable place, and this fact makes the reward of crime worth the risk of going to our fine prisons. They arent over crowded because our our laws, they are over crowded because they arent a bad place to be.

Are you ok with having innocent people serve out a life sentence? Wrong convictions are a problem with the trial side, not the punishment side.

Okay, but a problem in the trial side results in a problem in the punishment side (because an innocent person would be improperly punished). And no I am not okay with an innocent person serving out a life sentence, but the wrongly convicted person serving a life sentence at least has some chance to clear his name and regain freedom. An executed man does not.

Okay, but a problem in the trial side results in a problem in the punishment side (because an innocent person would be improperly punished). And no I am not okay with an innocent person serving out a life sentence, but the wrongly convicted person serving a life sentence at least has some chance to clear his name and regain freedom. An executed man does not.

We can use extreme cases to bolster any position. Most criminals serving in prison are repeat offenders. The death penalty has a staggeringly low repeat offender rate. The idea behind our court system is to allow 1000 guilty men to go free rather than one innocent man be falsely convicted. I still think we strive towards that. With modern DNA practices, its harder and harder to make a false conviction. As time passes and those convicted prior to modern technology pass on, the falsely accused freeing himself and redeeming himself will be past fantasy.

IMO prison should be hell on earth and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I think this is the happy medium between execution for all offense and our current cushy system. I think they should be so miserable that people will do whatever it takes to stay out of prison and will make whatever life they can within the law, or die trying.

We can use extreme cases to bolster any position. Most criminals serving in prison are repeat offenders. The death penalty has a staggeringly low repeat offender rate. The idea behind our court system is to allow 1000 guilty men to go free rather than one innocent man be falsely convicted. I still think we strive towards that. With modern DNA practices, its harder and harder to make a false conviction. As time passes and those convicted prior to modern technology pass on, the falsely accused freeing himself and redeeming himself will be past fantasy.

IMO prison should be hell on earth and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I think this is the happy medium between execution for all offense and our current cushy system. I think they should be so miserable that people will do whatever it takes to stay out of prison and will make whatever life they can within the law, or die trying.

For someone who is so skeptical of the other branches of government, I find it surprising your feeling that the judicial branch is infallible.

Consider too that the recidivism rate is so high not because prison is such an awesome vacation destination, but because of what a poor job we do of reintegrating criminals back into society.

I don't have guns to protect myself from the military. For one I'm not tactically trained like they nor do I have the firepower that they do. Not that I want that kind of fire power. There are plenty of people that I do want to protect myself from. The needs of a gun like an AR aren't seen by many but still needed by some. If I lived within two hours of the Texas/Mexico border you better believe I would have one on me at all times. The rest of the country doesn't get to live the fear that ranchers get to live everyday. Why not just pack up and move you ask? Why should they have to? Well then just make an exemption for people in certain circumstances right? Well that exemption becomes the loophole for the next time someone needs a reason for crime not going down. Every law that's brought up to legislation has future plans beyond the original law, everything needs a stepping stone. If you don't believe that then I don't know what to tell you. Protect your rights sensibly and with actual purpose and when you open your mouth don't give people a reason to call BS. Anyone can find a reason for anything that will back up their point, go look through others eyes before forming your own opinions and sharing them with the world to see. History does have a way of repeating itself if you don't learn from past mistakes. Read from that what you will and I hope summer hurries fast so we can all get off each others throats.

Your worldview is the part of the problem. Blame anyone or anything except those responsible.

Criminals re-offend because the weight of punishment is not greater than the risk reward.

Prison is a punishment, not a place to acquire a life coach.

Maybe some. But how successful are the parolees going to be finding a decent job with CONVICTED FELON stamped on their record? Don't get me wrong, I am all for criminals doing the time for their crime, but I don't think their is a ton of opportunity for a freshly released person. It's sad that instead of crafting a useful discussion, you have to attack a person because their view is different view. Saying that we generally don't do a good job truly rehabilitating prisoners (which I believe is true) doesn't equate to "blaming society". Yes, convicted criminals are to blame for their crimes, but there is no point of releasing them if they aren't given a realistic opportunity to live an honest life.

They had the same opportunity as everyone else. They made the decision to break the law and the consequence is a criminal record that will haunt you for the rest of your life. We make choices and must face the consequence for those choices. It is not societies job to rehabilitate offenders, it is societies job to punish them for their crime. It is THEIR job to rehabilitate- to suggest they re-offend because society isn't holding up their part of the bargain is pure garbage. The bargain is: You follow the rules and enter productively, or you become an outcast.

Besides, sans first degree murder, nobody goes to jail for a single crime. They have become fixtures of the criminal justice system before they set foot in any prison. The VAST majority have had chance after chance.

More garbage from a distorted world view. You're suggesting that criminals have no choice but to commit crimes.
"No realistic opportunity to live an honest life"

Nobody owes you an opportunity.

Pure garbage. If it weren't so sad it would be comical.

I am not suggesting that at all. That is you attempting to say, "oh you, blame society for criminals' mistakes", just because I am not agreeing with you *** for tat. Let me sum this up for you one more time. Should criminals serve time for their crimes? My answer is a resounding yes. Are they to blame for their mistakes? Another yes from me. There is no distorted world view from me, but if there is not some sort of rehabilitation in prison, then we will always have a problem with repeat offenders. And yes, I know that some people do not want to live an honest life, but there are some that do.

And Barry, if I am not mistaken, you are a Christian. What does the bible say about forgiveness?

^There's no confusion. But if a person pays their debt, do we hold them accountable for the rest of their life? I hardly ever drive more than 5 MPH over the speed limit, but in a moment of not paying attention to my speedometer and needing to pee really badly, I received a speeding ticket in GA. I paid all necessary fines and admitted all responsibility for speeding, but should I permanently be remembered as a law-breaking speeder?

You're missing the point.
The natural consequence of of being a criminal goes well past incarceration. Unfair or not, you will likely be branded a felon for life. They can be forgiven, or pay their full debt, but consequence has a ripple affect and is not limited to initial punishment.

You didn't answer me:

Quote:

I know that some people do not want to live an honest life, but there are some that do.
Then what's stopping them? According to you:.."they aren't given a realistic opportunity to live an honest life.

If they're not given(key word) a realistic opportunity then who's responsible for providing that opportunity?

Quote:

I know that some people do not want to live an honest life, but there are some that do.

"our prisons are a very comfortable place, and this fact makes the reward of crime worth the risk of going to our fine prisons."
We(the people) should not be paying $50,000.00 a year for each person in prison. We shouldn't have to pay a dime for criminals. Put all the violent criminals in South Dakota with an acre of land and make them fend for themselves, if they leave the area they are to live in their monitor gives them a severe shock.

" Singapore law does not prohibit any gun type for ownership."

This is a very Misleading statement!
In Singapore, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Singapore ranked at No. 163
In Singapore, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
An applicant for a firearm licence in Singapore must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, medical, and Gun Club Membership
In Singapore gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every 2 years
Maybe we could learn a few things from Singapore?

Joe, it's not misleading. We regulate types of guns a civilian can have (NFA 1934). They do not regulate types. We have similar background checks as well, but we don't have to re-up a license unless we are carrying concealed. So, not a ton of difference already. The real question is why do they not have the crime problem? It's because they hold individual adults accountable for their actions. Doing something against the law is not a mistake. It's a willful attempt at gaining by breaching the rules. Dropping a mayonnaise jar is a mistake.

Wow Jason, you read it one way and I read the same words and get a completely different interpretation.
In Singapore, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition and the right is not guaranteed by law. Once you have a license you may purchase Any type of gun you wish.
This is completely different than the USA, where anyone can go to a gun show and buy or sell a gun.
Is anyone else besides Jason reading this as being similar to US laws?

Nah, I understand what you meant, you just misunderstood what i was talking about in the initial mention. i was talking about regulating types of guns. Here we cannot buy machine guns or short barreled rifles/shotguns without a tax stamp (which is similar to the license you are referring to as it has the same background check, and has to be signed off on by local authorities if bought by an individual, etc). They do not regulate types of guns like we do. Once you are approved for ownership, you can own anything and everything.

Most people in the us buy their guns from dealers and go through FFLs. The face to face sales do not account for much of the gun purchases in the US. Bad guys would get there guns in a face to face transaction whether those kinds of transactions are legal or not. What people do not understand is that legislation does not make it harder for those who break laws. You cannot stop gun violence with rules. You stop it with penalties.

I'm sorry. I haven't been ignoring your post. My best friend committed suicide last week. I have been on here some, but not as much as usual.

My answer to your comment is, that yes, he has a "realistic opportunity" to live an honest life, but what are going to be his possibilities of employment. Before you give me the "America is the land of opportunity" spill, let's just be honest with one another, his likely job choices are going to be minimum wage jobs. Is it feasible to support a family on minimum wage? Yes, I know he has the chance to work his way up to fry cook and then maybe supervisor, that chance doesn't pay the bills.

Again, I know they committed the crime and it's not societies fault. But when earning a decent living (I am only talking about the basics, nothing exotic) is extremely difficult to find good employment due to their criminal history. And considering that the majority of prisoners are high school dropouts this only makes the situation more difficult. I guess my argument is that offering them some sort of training in a trade or an opportunity to earn their GED is better than having them potentially returning to a life of crime, particularly from a fiscal point of view.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Suicide is such a tough thing to deal with on top of death.

IMO, this should be a critical deterrent against crime. You DO NOT get a normal life back once you have paid your legal debt. You have to make due with the consequences of your illegal action. That means you dont get the best jobs, and you have to work 3 crappy jobs to make what a lower class non-criminal makes. We are all called to live by the rules or die trying. This is why prison must be so uncomfortable, that someone would rather die trying to live by the rules, then get sent back in.

People do get back into the normal workforce over time, but they have to stick with it. Harsh punishment will make that the case more often.

The media seems to be obsessed with the failure of last week's but the primary reason for that failure has gone unreported, national CCW reciprocity.

The votes to invoke cloture (overcome a filibuster) were there. The decision to require 60-votes on these bills was made by Senate leadership, i.e. Democrats, in order to avoid floor debate on the bill and subsequent amendments. So when the Manchin-Toomey amendment regarding background checks, for the 11% of firearms purchased face-to-face or at the feared and reviled gun show, failed, the fault layed at the feet of the majority party who made the decision to require a higher vote threshold.

So why would Senate leadership opt to avoid floor debate and potential success of opposition party amendments, especially considering Senator Cruz was offering amendments to include mental health indicators to improve the NICS system and solve an issue that may have prevented Aurora and Virginia Tech. Both those shooters purchased their firearms through a FFL with a NICS background check despite both had been flagged by mental health professionals. This is a flaw in the current system, but clearly that amendment by Senator Cruz wouldn't cause Senate leadership to flinch, it's supportive of limiting who can buy firearms.

Well, the Cornyn amendment is likely the primary reason for the 60-vote threshold. This amendment would have created CCW reciprocity. So if you have a CCW permit/license it would be valid in all jurisdictions. Basically, the Senate Democrats derailed their whole gun package over a fear of LICENSED gun-owners.

Just another perspective on what happened. It wasn't arcane procedural rules or the gun lobby or the Republicans, it was a political error made to prevent bipartisan participation and prevent an open debate on the Senate floor. Oh and they also sacrificed a national magazine limitation of 10-rounds, which got a majority but failed to receive 60-votes.